pam 0.99

Kees Cook kees at
Fri Sep 7 19:21:37 BST 2007

On Fri, Sep 07, 2007 at 06:45:50PM +0100, Matt Zimmerman wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 05, 2007 at 05:18:30PM -0700, Kees Cook wrote:
> > Does anyone (Mithrandir?) remember why we're carrying the per-user
> > .pam_environment file patch?  That was the most extensive to port to the
> > new code (the other Ubuntu changes were pretty trivial).
> I think this was low-hanging fruit added during the implementation of
> one-true-path.  It isn't essential functionality.

If it's not needed, I'd like to drop it.  (Doing so would also close bug

How is the one-true-path handled, BTW?  We have some open bugs (64064,
110287) that would like to see it adjusted.

> I think these new limits are more correct, but even correct changes often
> break applications. :-)

True.  I haven't seen any issues yet, and honestly, most other distros
have had these defaults for a while now.

> Do you think we have sufficient time to work out the bugs prior to release?

I think if we can get it in before beta, it should be okay.  From what I
can see, adding 0.99 should close more bugs than it opens (*cross
fingers*).  At least these so far: 43169 14505 80431, and likely open
the door for some of the things people want to add that require 0.99
libraries (e.g. AppArmor's PAM module).


Kees Cook
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : 

More information about the ubuntu-devel mailing list